Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Up there on the platformHe is speaking to the peopleThe people are respondingWith clapping and a cheeringBut the meaning of the messageNot revealed to those assembledThey're taken for a rideTaken in his stride

When the generals talkYou better listen to himWhen the generals talkYou better do what he say--from "When the Generals Talk", by Midnight Oil

That really sets the table for the debates, eh? Harper is going to be on the defensive, while his deputy leader is stuck spending extra time trying to save his own riding (that's the real power play behind the Dion/May agreement). Harper has so few other mouthpieces than himself that he trusts. Now here he is shown up as someone who isn't his own man. So what other speeches has he had imported? And was this even Howard's own speech to begin with? Or possibly something prepared in Washington or London?

I am a father. I have a 4-year old and a 14-month old, and they both have voracious appetites. I used to make grilled-cheese sandwiches with hungarian salami tucked inside for the oldest one. I'd give him a slice of salami while he was waiting for his lunch.

I'd also give the younger one some tiny pieces of meat. He laps that stuff up like nothing else.

Well, I guess he's lucky to be alive. Some other people's babies aren't so lucky.

And you found it possible to joke about "...death by a thousand cuts, or should I say: 'cold-cuts'?". I think I know what was going through your head at the time. It wasn't guilt, or anguish over the unnecessary illnesses and deaths your actions led to. Instead, you were concerned about the political fallout for your useless party's government, weren't you?

Weren't you?!?

You rhetorically asked if one of the tragic deaths caused by the recent listeria outbreak might be your political opponent. Tell me something: what if it had been your political opponent who'd died as a result of this negligence? Not so funny anymore, eh?

Is that what it would take for you to understand what a disgusting and dishonourable jackass you are?

Let me remind you of something. You are supposed to be "responsible". You are supposed to be in charge of making sure government oversight of the meat packing industry is in place and effective.

You, Gerry Ritz, have blood on your hands.

You, Gerry Ritz, should accept responsibility and step down immediately.

Monday, September 15, 2008

For those who missed it, the most*-candidates debate broadcast this morning on Daybreak - CBC Radio One Montreal - is available for a limited time on the CBC site as a podcast. Ingrid did a fine job showcasing the depth of Green Party policy on several issues: from tackling poverty as a long-term strategy toward public security, to the economic and trade benefits we can realize by promoting our culture internationally, (instead of eliminating the program outright, as the Harper government did just recently). Click here to download the whole debate.

*The Conservative party's nominee, Mustaque Saker, was absent; in his place sat the much higher profile Michael Fortier, Minister of International Trade, even though Fortier is running in the off-island riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges.

Host Mike Finnerty and the gang will be broadcasting from a popular local eaterie with the candidates. As of last Friday, the Conservatives were planning to send Minister of International Trade Michael Fortier in to pinch-hit for Mustaque Sarker, effectively denying listeners the chance to hear their actual CPC candidate go toe to toe with his rivals on english radio.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Mother May I? The answer is now yes. From here on in Canada, May Day may now be celebrated on 10 September. Thank you Mr. Layton, and Mr. Harper, for putting an end to this silliness and respecting the will of the vox populi (as well as good ol' common decency).

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

What a bother this representational,... what do they call it? demogra...? demma? democracy? Yeah, democracy stuff is. 308 bloody candidates - all with ...freakish skeletons in their closets ...and mouths! Mouths that might say words that can't be controlled, not like robots can. That's it. GET ME ROBOTS!! LIKE IN THAT SECOND BORING STAR WARS MOVIE!!!

At least until I can get my majority, and then sell this god-forsaken socialist backwater country to the United States where is belongs! Now let me look at that notaleader site. WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT FINISHED YET?!? Well, show me what you've got. Did they get the puffin in yet? Let me see... THAT'S CRAP!! I TOLD YOU - I WANT THE PUFFIN TO CRAP ON HIS SHOULDER!!! HIS SHOULDER, MORONS!! GET IT RIGHT!

"I think it's in the public interest to have a woman political leader on the stage, if for no other reason that it gives young girls, young women a role model. Not that I want to be their role model in all things, but if you don't ever see a woman on the stage in a federal televised leaders' debate, the message to young women is that they don't belong on that stage, that women aren't in politics."

You won't have to try hard to read between the lines of this CP report on Layton's appearance, wherein he proves that he has the requisite two sides of one mouth to live up to our current Prime Minister's standard.

REGINA - Jack Layton says the NDP's reputation for fighting the establishment and championing the underdog is intact despite his refusal to allow the Green Party a podium at the televised debates.

The New Democrat leader is on the defensive over the decision to exclude Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from the Oct. 1 event.

At a Regina coffee house, Layton told a breakfast crowd of cheering supporters that the NDP won't "let the old interests and powerful sectors" stand in the party's way.

But later, he defended excluding May by saying she had already endorsed Liberal Leader Stephane Dion for prime minister.

Layton also tried to shift responsibility for the decision to the television networks that will host the event.

Some NDP supporters at a Monday night rally in Vancouver expressed shock at the party's stand.

As for Peevey Stevie, after whining on and on yesterday about how unfair it would be to have to face May, he's evidently decided that's not the right side of the issue to be on after all, and today is shutting his yap on the matter (looks like he already winded himself apologizing for his pooping puffin problems).

And we thought the American election was entertaining? Heck, we've even got "Scandalpedia" now (courtesy of the Grits).

I have changed my blogger template to use html colour code 006600 for the text. This is going to stay that way until common sense prevails and this gets reversed, or the date for the debate passes (or I can't stand looking at it anymore... whatever comes first).

It's really sad how NDP leader Jack Layton has reacted to the Mother May I? question. Here is a guy who has huge posters put up (see the corner of St-Laurent and Jean-Talon in Montreal) with just his own name and mustachioed grin. He daily stands at a podium with only his name emblazoned upon it. He is flying in a campaign plane with only his name on the side in giant letters. Yet he wouldn't take ownership of his decision to deny Elizabeth May's voice at the upcoming televised leadership debates by speaking to the media about it himself. Instead, he sent his spokesperson to explain it, and belied his claim to strong leadership himself by meekly choosing to duck reporters' questions.

Layton was hustled away by handlers when reporters tried to clarify if he had said he would pull out.

"I'm looking forward to debating the prime minister," was his only comment.

Before Lavigne spoke, another NDP official speaking off record said that a negotiator for Layton had told network organizers that he would have to "reconsider" his participation but had not threatened to boycott.

And then the NDP spokesperson couldn't resist promoting the entirely false meme (that may have been true two elections ago) of the Green Party being a one-issue party. Seems to me that if your actions do not jibe with your rhetoric, you are not doing anything to gain the trust of voters who have been skeptical of your party for decades. It reminds me of a line from Obama's incredible DNC acceptance speech: "He just doesn't get it." Of course the 'he' Obama was referring to was his Republican counterpart, John McCain, but it surely applies to Mr. Layton on this day.

For the record, the Vision Green is a 160-page tome in pdf, and covers the economy, taxation, public security, Afghanistan and just about everything in the federal realm and beyond:

Vision Green presents leading-edge thinking and rational, realistic solutions for all the issues facing Canadians. It was developed by a 31-member Green Shadow Cabinet and was informed by experts, activists and citizens who participated in policy workshops held across Canada. All the proposals are based on policies approved by the membership of the Green Party.

Green Party solutions are rational because the Green Party, unlike other parties, understands the scientifically verified limits to growth set by the carrying capacity of our planet. We must work within these limits. Otherwise, we will exhaust resources, degrade our environment and put our economy, health and children’s future at risk.

Our solutions are realistic because they follow “best practices” already in place in parts of Canada or other countries. These practices are cost-effective, deliver results and benefit people, the economy and the environment.

The Green Party’s down-to-earth solutions will work in Canada because they have worked around the world. Many have been successfully applied in Europe, where Greens are elected at all political levels, including the European Union and national parliaments. Countries where Greens have served in government are the countries creating new high-paying jobs while simultaneously meeting targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are the countries where the gap between rich and poor is small and the standard of living is high. These countries don’t trade off the environment for the economy. Their economies and environmental laws are both strong.

Many people find it hard to position the Green Party on the old political spectrum. We believe in sound fiscal management and strengthening our economy while ensuring that it is sustainable. Does that mean we are “right wing”? We believe that government must provide needed social services while protecting our environment and the rights of women, minorities and disadvantaged people. Does that make us “left wing”? We don’t think so. More and more people are simply thinking of the Green Party as the party of the future.

The Green Party is different from other parties in another important way. We will never place the pursuit of power above principle. We will not allow partisan politics to get in the way of good ideas and needed action. We agree with Canadians who say it’s time for parties in parliament to stop bickering and get on with the job of combating climate change and taking better care of our environment, our health and our economy.

Let's not forget Harper's atrocious behaviour in this matter - he was the first one to spread lies and threaten to boycott the whole affair if the Green Party leader was given a seat, perhaps to protect the shaky seat held by his lil buddy, Junior MacKay, against whom May is running herself.Why not just letElizabethspeak.ca, guys? Or are you enjoying this media storm that's taking you all off-message?

Four former Canadian Prime Ministers (comprising what? four or five years' experience in the PM chair among the lot?) all agree they ignored a serious issue while in power and now want to get on the right side of history by wagging their fingers at today's party leaders with a report calling for immediate action to fight global warming.

The report calls for a $30-a-tonne price tag on emissions, and says a "staggering" investment in green technologies is required.

The document has been signed by four former prime ministers, Joe Clark and Kim Campbell, both Progressive Conservatives, and Liberals Paul Martin and John Turner.

The names of Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney are conspicuously absent from the document, even though both were contacted by the group, Roy told the Globe and Mail.

I find it a bit rich for Martin in particular to be on board here. He, more than anyone else in this lot, is responsible for Canada being slow to enact meaningful measures that could've made a difference on his watch. I guess it's better late than never, eh?

I have a feeling this is backfiring badly on all concerned. Have a look at the CBC story on this sordid business: there are more than 600 comments attached. (This Globe story: 430 comments) A firestorm, in other words. I wonder who will be the next member of the Gang of Three to buckle?

Shorter Peevey Stevie: Oh the horrifying injustice of it all! Oh boo hoo... Oh it's so unfair what those Big Bad Green Meanies want to do to me... Don't they know I'm a very strong, strong leader? Oh why must they be so unfair?!?

And then the media "Consortium" humbly bows down to His Mightiness and grants the sulky power-tripping democracy-hating Strongman his wish. Disgusting.

What a sad day for democracy in Canada. Here's May's reaction (per the Globe and Mail):

Ms. May claimed Mr. Harper is concerned that Greens are stealing votes from Conservatives, pointing to the riding of Guelph where their party polls show the Greens are up at the expense of the Tory candidate.

When asked directly about Mr. Harper's prediction that she will endorse Mr. Dion, Ms. May replied: “We know he's had a stylist who also is billed as a clairvoyant working for him, I wonder if that's what he's basing this on,” she said. “I don't know how to respond to something so absurd.”

Fight, Elizabeth May, fight.

4:40 PM UPDATE: I see from the CBC story that Layton and Duceppe also vetoed the debates if May was going to be there. What is this? An old-boys club mentality? Is there collusion going on here? Doubtful. But this just shows how powerful a good idea can be when the men on top of their little kingdoms feel it's more convenient to silence their critics than to face them. And they will make their platitudes about the great democratic institutions of this country while doing so. Count on it.

Nevermind that polls have consistently shown that 77% of Canadians want the Green leader in the debates. Nevermind that 660,000 Canadians voted Green in 2006. Nevermind that the Green Party is one of only parties to receive federal funding. Nevermind that Canadian taxpayers shell out over $1 million a year to the Greens. Nevermind that the Greens run candidates in all provinces.

Nevermind democracy, you wimp chickenshit bastards.

Today is a dark day for Canadian democracy. The blame goes squarely to Harper, Layton and Duceppe. I will not watch the debates between these tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumbasses. Craven cowards who used their collective might to thwart democratic debate. Bastards! Dirty, rotten, chickenshit bastards!

And her party isn't agitating for Quebec separation either I might add...

With a six-month old on my hip, I take on this challenge because I believe she deserves a better future, as does my 3-year old son.

How will we answer (our children) when they ask why, why did we let the planet become so sick? What will we tell them? I used glass baby bottles and sippy-cups, we will tell them. I had a compost. I tried to buy local and organic when I could afford to, we will say. Okay, alright. But this is only the beginning. The whole planet needs to think green, and it has to start at the government level. In North America, it can start with the Canadian government.

Hein and her riding rivals will be participating in a debate on culture and law & order (the real stuff; not the TV show) on CBC Radio One, Montreal (98.5 FM) on Monday, September 15th, at 7:40 am (EDT).

P.S.: Speaking as the newly minted GPC Financial officer for Papineau, we are currently graciously accepting donations; and volunteers sporting any combination of political savvy, campaign sign affixing wherewithal and baby wrangling know-how (some experience in that regard preferred, however one-on-one training will be provided). Contact me, Scott Murray, at the Randboro email address, or through the riding email address.

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Mayor Tommy Shanks (John Candy) is Melonville's "easygoing" (corrupt) mayor who is prone to sudden fits of rage and physical violence, yet gives regular fireside chats on SCTV while a stuffed dog sits motionless by his side. Throwing out one non-sequitur after another, Shanks manages to convey absolutely nothing of relevance during his broadcasts. Eventually, Shanks succumbs to mental illness and is institutionalized. While still in the institution, he runs for re-election with the campaign slogan "Get me outta here!" and wins by a landslide.

Too bad much searching on both youtube and google photos has not turned up anything else, but I trust true SCTV fans will know what I'm talking about here.

Friday, September 05, 2008

What this adds up to is pretty simple. During this campaign Layton will leave the war on the back burner. He will not make opposition to the war a central plank in his campaign platform. He will not repeat his party's opposition to the war unless he has to. He will not fight for the withdrawal of Canadian forces from Afghanistan.

Progressive Canadians have no party, they have no leader.

In defending the NDP as the party best representing those like me who feel Canada has no business participating in ISAF (the NATO-led combat mission in Afghanistan), leftdog has a point with his comment that the NDP have been the loudest political voice in opposition to our combat role there. But at the same time, it's telling that he had to go back eight months to find any mention of the NDP stance being put forward by the party machinery on Canada's role within the ISAF mission.

I think what this says (and John Waugh was astute to pick up on it) is that the NDP don't see this issue as even cracking the top ten list for them - on the eve of an election campaign to boot.

This cuts to the heart of the matter for a lot of us who may have previously defended/supported the NDP and share much of their worldview; but have found it just as partisanly unwelcome a home as the Martin Liberals had been.

But there is another party with ideas on the subject. I am talking of course about the Green Party.

On page 104 of the Vision Green policy document (updated just last month) you may note on pages 103-104 the GPC maintains the NATO-led mission is wrong and that Canada should withdraw our troops from the effort by this coming February at the latest.

...Despite this disheartening situation, there is also a very high risk that the immediate removal of all foreign troops would lead to the outbreak of a full-scale civil war and a humanitarian catastrophe. Accordingly, the Green Party believes we need to shift as rapidly as possible away from the current US-led NATO command mission, to a more ethnically balanced and regionally represented United Nations command effort and a greater security role for the Afghan National Army. This mission redesign improves the probability that over time the conditions will emerge for a viable political solution to the conflict...

Will this become a central plank in the campaign? I certainly hope I can influence this from within the party. While global warming and its potential for devastation is perhaps the most important issue for humanity right now, the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere must not be dumped out of the discussion merely for politically strategic reasons.

As John rightly points out, this is our biggest international commitment currently, and it sucked up all the resources we had previously spent 35 years building up as world leaders in peacekeeping activities - a shameful about-pace for which the Liberals and Conservatives need to be held to account, and which (one would hope) the NDP, Bloq Québecois and GPC would not let up on.

3:00 p.m. Update: It seems I was even timelier in posting this than anticipated.

OTTAWA — A majority of Canadians still view their soldiers as peacekeepers and would rather see them helping disaster victims than fighting, an internal poll prepared for National Defence suggests.

The results of the exhaustive survey, obtained by The Canadian Press, come despite the best efforts of both the Conservative government and the military to rebrand the Canadian Forces as a combat outfit.

“The image of the Canadian peacekeeper is one that has taken hold in the Canadian national psyche in the decades since the Korean War,” said the Ipsos Reid study, which is expected to be released Monday.

“Recent attempts at repositioning this traditional role toward one that emphasizes a more activist approach which includes the use of force have met with relatively little interest and still less acceptance.”

I have to pass this on from Nature Moms blog. Any parents out there with tagless kids' clothes take notice:

these labels may be made with “PVC blended into a Phthalate” or ink with “small levels of formaldehyde”. It was even stated that “residual phthalate from not fully fused ink is what is most likely causing the reaction.” And the reactions are horrible. Read this description of a reaction to Carter’s tagless clothes and look at these pictures.

This reminds me of my visit to my local Pharmaprix (that's the brand Shopper's Drug Mart goes by in La Belle Province) a few months ago in search of a good teething ring for my baby boy. It was in the middle of one of those toy recalls and I was specifically hoping to find something not made in China, since it would be in and out of his little mouth constantly, and I had lost confidence in any product from China living up to its printed-in-Canada assurances of safety. Anyway, of eight products to choose from, not one was manufactured anywhere but China.

Parenting in the modern age, eh? In the end it was decided to go with non-plastic alternatives.

NOTE: my own two sons have shown zero reaction to tagless clothes themselves, despite wearing them continually. What I linked to here is admittedly an unconfirmed report, but a quick check on snopes.com found no urban legends reported on tagless clothes burns. That and the severity of the reaction shown in those pictures led me to want to pass it on just in case.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Dave over at the Galloping Beaver really does a bravura job of picking apart the conceit written into Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin's speech to the RNC last night that tried to equate her candidacy with that of one Harry S. Truman:

By the time a person is selected as the possible successor for the prospective holder of the nuclear launch codes, offering one's membership on an elementary school PTA simply does not cut it as a valid credential and certainly doesn't compare to the route taken by a much more substantial and skilled politician.

Former party leader Jim Harris said the Greens won't hesitate to resort to court action if current leader Elizabeth May isn't allowed to participate.

"We're going to allow the broadcasters the chance to do the right thing," Harris said at a news conference.

"This is pre-emptive, to say, 'If you do not do as you should, then there will be legal consequences."'

If the group of major broadcasters that organize the debates refuse to give May a spot, Harris said the party will file a complaint to the CRTC.

Should the federal broadcast regulator rule against the Green party, a judicial review of the decision will be sought, he said.

The party said the broadcast consortium - which includes CBC Radio Canada, CTV, Global Television and TVA - exercises "carte blanche control" over who participates in the debates, but lacks clear criteria for inclusion.

Harris said it would be a "very good thing" to have laws spelling out the rules for inclusion in the debates.

"We should have criteria such as major support in polls across the country, such as running in all ridings, these are pretty simple criteria, objective criteria, and yes, we should have them," said Harris.

And how do the Harper Conservatives respond? By their own novel (read:"twisted") logic, the GPC's Elizabeth May cannot be present alongside the Liberals' Stephane Dion since they don't hate each other as badly as the Conservatives would like. From the CBC report:

The federal Conservatives are seeking to block May from the debates, citing a deal struck by May and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion where they agreed not to run candidates against each other in their respective ridings.

"You can't have one leader onstage that has already endorsed the candidacy of another and signed an electoral co-operation agreement," Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas said.

"When it comes to the debate, they can have May or they can have Dion," he said. "But they can't have both."

It has been a normal practice in the past for political parties to occasionally not run candidates against rival parties' leaders.

To present such a laughably ridiculous argument must mean the Cons are really scared of what might become of a truly formidable opponent like May taking Harper on in front of a live TV audience.

Here's another good reason to include the Green Party of Canada: how many other parties grew their support by 100% since receiving 4.5% of the votes tallied in 2006?

And how's this for a good reason to include Elizabeth May: as the only female leader of a national party, maybe it would be nice to see some diversity up there, eh?

Or can't four white guys handle it?

If you think they can, why don't you make your opinion known to all the major Canadian TV media by signing our petition and helping us fight for democracy in this country. After all, we know that's what most Canadians want to see!

And if you're interested in making your voice heard over at the CRTC, here's where you can do that.